ArticleInternational journal of legal medicine2021
Age-dependent decrease in dental pulp cavity volume as a feature for age assessment: a comparative in vitro study using 9.4-T UTE-MRI and CBCT 3D imaging.
Article in International journal of legal medicine, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Magnetic Resonance Imaging for Dental Pulp Assessment: A Comprehensive Review.Journal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI · 2025Review
- Review
- Beyond X-Rays: Unveiling the Future of Dental Diagnosis with Dental Magnetic Resonance Imaging.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- A potential novel technique for measurement of pulp volume on periapical radiography: A pilot study.The Kaohsiung journal of medical sciences · 2024Article
- Bibliometric analysis of research on dental age estimation.The Journal of forensic odonto-stomatology · 2023Article
- Prediction of Age Older than 18 Years in Sub-adults by MRI Segmentation of 1st and 2nd Molars.International journal of legal medicine · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Evaluation of secondary dentin formation is generally suitable for age assessment. We investigated the potential of modern magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) technology to visualize the dental pulp in direct comparison with cone beam computed tomography (CBCT). To this end, we examined 32 extracted human teeth (teeth 11-48 [FDI]) using 9.4-T ultrashort echo time (UTE)-MRI and CBCT (methods). 3D reconstruction was performed via both manual and semi-automatic segmentation (settings) for both methods in two runs by one examiner. Nine teeth were also examined by a second examiner. We evaluated the agreement between examiners, scan methods, and settings. CBCT was able to determine the pulp volume for all teeth. This was not possible for two teeth on MRI due to MRI artifacts. The mean pulp volume estimated by CBCT was consistently higher (~ 43%) with greater variability. With lower variability in its measurements, evaluation of pulp volume using the MRI method exhibited greater sensitivity to differences between settings (p = 0.016) and between examiners (p = 0.009). The interactions of single-rooted teeth and multi-rooted teeth and method or setting were not found to be significant. For examiner agreement, the mean pulp volumes were similar with overlapping measurements (ICC > 0.995). Suitable for use in age assessment is 9.4-T UTE-MRI with good reliability and lower variation than CBCT. For MRI, manual segmentation is necessary due to a more detailed representation of the interior of the pulp cavity. Since determination of pulp volume is expected to be systematically larger using CBCT, method-specific reference values are indispensable for practical age assessment procedures. The results should be verified under in vivo conditions in the future.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.